The subject disclosure relates to integrating a blockchain and data collection and analysis for open scientific research. Currently, there are limited platforms that allow for sharing information about scientific research and showing transparent data collection and analysis steps. Platforms that do exist, lack the requisite controls and mechanisms to allow for trustworthy data, as there are few options for ensuring that data will be resistant to modification.
For example, as described in Topol, Money Back Guarantees for Non-Reproducible Results, B M J 2016, 353:i2770, published 24 May 2016, it is acknowledged that “[t]he problem of irreproducibility in biomedical research is real and has been emphasized in multiple reports” and that “use of blockchain technology has recently been shown to provide an immutable ledger of every step in a clinical research protocol, and this could easily be adapted to basic and experimental model science. All participants in the peer-to-peer research network have access to all of the time stamped, continuously updated data. It is essentially tamper proof since any change, such as to the pre-specified data analysis, would have to be made in every computer (typically thousands) within the distributed network.” While Topol describes the problem of data transparency and proposes that blockchain could serve as a solution. It describes researchers as having access to time-stamped immutable data through a public blockchain. It does not describe 1) mixed confidentiality policies, 2) researchers having access to real-time logs of analyses (only to changes to an analysis plan), 3) blockchain logging of the analytical steps via connection of analytical software to a blockchain contract, 4) any methods or algorithms to assess the statistical power of the underlying result by analysis of steps on the blockchain (for example, automatic correction for multiple analyses) or 5) any integrated algorithms or blockchain contracts that perform functions other than a) a public record of data transactions and b) refunds based on detection of a violation of data provenance.
Similarly, Irving et al., How Blockchain-Timestamped Protocols could Improve the Trustworthiness of Medical Science, F1000Research 2016, 5:222, last updated 31 May 2016 discloses a “report a proof-of-concept study using a ‘blockchain’ as a low cost, independently verifiable method that could be widely and readily used to audit and confirm the reliability of scientific studies.” Similar to Topol above, Irving does not disclose points 1-5 above.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,404,079 to Gudbjartsson et al. discloses “an automated system for the processing of data packets, composed of identifiers and data, such that the personally identifiable data sent by one party may be considered anonymous once received by a second party. The invention uses secret sharing techniques to facilitate distributed key management of the mapping functions and strong authentication to allow the system to be operated remotely.” Gudjbjartsson discloses a mixed security policy that could be an example of one that could be utilized as a prior contract for the invention described here. However it is not the only such security contract that could be used, and it differs from the subject disclosure in that: 1) it is an up-front security contract between all parties, rather than a security policy defined by the a party at the time they expose data to the blockchain; 2) it does not specify a public blockchain ledger; 3) it does not name methods for analyzing the ledger to assess the robustness of data; and 4) it does not specify a smart contract that treats reported or analyzed data differently from raw data.